Banned racist Merrie Melodies cartoon: 1943’s ‘Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs
by guest contributor Yolanda M. Carrington, originally published at The Primary Contradiction
As you probably guessed from watching the clip, the Merrie Melodies cartoon Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs (1943) is a supposed hot jazz retelling of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, animated and produced by Warner Brothers animator Robert Clampett. (The character is named “So White”—the short is titled “Coal Black” because producer Leon Schlesinger wanted to avoid confusion with the Disney film.)
This short is one of the infamous “Censored Eleven,” eleven Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies shorts that were yanked from rebroadcast syndication in 1968 to accommodate that era’s swiftly-changing racial climate. Many of these banned cartoons (the Censored Eleven represents a mere fraction of the racist animation produced before World War II) are widely available over the Internet, since most of these works have long entered the public domain.
According to Wikipedia, Clampett was said to have been heavily influenced by jazz performers and hipsters from the 1940s Black jazz scene in New York, as well as the jazz-themed all-Black movie musicals that were wildly popular with audiences during that period. He and his animation team actually visited a Black jazz club in Los Angeles (ahhh….studying the Negroes!) to get a feel for the interaction and lingo. Today, despite having been banned for four decades, Coal Black is rated by animation experts as Clampett’s masterpiece, as well as one of the greatest animated cartoons ever made.
In 2006, we Americans find ourselves in a political situation nearly identical to the one faced by Coal Black’s audience in 1943. I know that for many of you, watching Coal Black was extremely offensive, even sickening. But I really wanted folks to see this short, and I was really hoping that others would recognize what I saw when I watched the clip, which was such a heavy experience for me that I had to watch it over and over again.
Honestly, I have never seen anything like it, a piece of media that is so offensive yet so crystal-clear in its political message. I wanted everyone to recognize the eons and eons of memes in the narrative and to make the connections between those memes to grasp the overall message.
For me, Coal Black stands as one of the clearest expressions of the relationship between white supremacy, patriarchy, and militarism. Needless to say, the short is rife with almost every racist meme ever projected onto African Americans.
An inventory of the damage:
• Black woman as Mammy (maternal storyteller in opening scene); ugly asexual villain (The Wicked Witch); sexualized Jezebel (So White)
• Black people as subhuman, semi-animal. Characters other than So White (who’s human yet whorish) more closely resemble cartoon whales, gorillas, and ducks (see Prince “Chawmin”) than homo sapiens
• Black folks as prone to extreme violence- Witch’s hiring of the “Murder Incorporated” outfit (Black ghetto version of the benevolent hunter) to “black out So White!”
•Black woman as insatiable whore-So White sleeps with all the members of Murder Inc (suggested by dialogue)—as opposed to pure heart appeal in original version—to avoid assassination attempt.
• Black men as oversexed hustlers (Chawmin), violent criminals, bumbling idiots, and the (classic!) lazy sambos.
These stereotypes are no surprise to those of us who know the racist history of American media. For me, the intense negrophobia of Coal Black, while deeply infuriating, is only one component of the overall political message. What truly makes Coal Black a jingoistic powerhouse is its reframing of (Black) male sexual potency—traditionally cast as violent and predatory—as patriotic, and its use of darky iconography to whip up anti-Japanese sentiment (note that the US was smack in the middle of World War II). Who couldn’t help but gasp at the blink-and-you-miss-it racist message on Murder Inc’s company car?
Let’s take a look at the Sebben (crude jive there, Clampett) Dwarfs. When So White encounters them, they are enlisted GIs training to go to war (giddily singing the plantation-happy refrain: “We’re in the Army now, we’re in the Army now!”) So White’s domestic chores for the Dwarfs in exchange for her room and board are reframed here as sacrifices for the war effort. Their heroism as good fighting men is juxtaposed against the image of Prince Chawmin, the conk-haired, gold tooth/flashy suit/monocle-wearing, Cadillac driving, ghetto debonair suitor who tries to win So White’s heart. (Between you and me, Chawmin looks like Daffy Duck’s evil twin. Seriously.) In both the traditional story and the 1937 Disney blockbuster, The Prince’s kiss is pure and powerful enough to awaken Snow White out of a poison-induced death. Yet here the “Prince,” try as he might, can’t kiss So White awake at all, no matter how hard he tries—and the sheer amount of energy he expends renders him old and weary. (Read: Insatiable woman wears man out.) Yet the smallest GI Dwarf snaps her awake with just one kiss. Chawmin can’t help but ask: “What you got dat make So White think you so hot?” Baby GI Dwarf’s unforgettable answer: “Well dat is a millatery secret!” He then plants a second kiss on So White so potent that her pigtails flip into twin American flags. Damn.
That’s said it all, folks.
What also hit home for me about this sixty-three year old cartoon is the realization of how we simultaneously romanticize the past and forget history. With all the debate these days about “violence in the media” and the ever-growing pornification and raunchiness of mainstream culture, who would have ever thunk that cartoons from the wholesome 1940s could be so full of sex and violence?
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
mr guy wrote:
I never understood why so many fans of old school animators think that animated short is the greatest thing since sliced bread.I’ve seen way better animation then that imho.
Posted 01 Dec 2006 at 8:41 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Mr. Guy – I’m at work so I haven’t seen the clip yet. But I’d say that it’s considered an objective “masterpiece” for the parody and layered social statements (abhorrent as they are now) in the piece.
Thank you so much for posting this – I’ve heard about the banned WB cartoons, but never seen them (really, haven’t been looking very hard, but still…).
>who would have ever thunk that cartoons from the wholesome 1940s could be so full of sex and violence?
I have always HATED when people around me romanticize any past era, from ancient Egypt to medieval Europe to the 1940s/1950s US. Funny how people always focus on the aristocracy/rulers, and forget about the realities and harshness of daily life and culture.
Posted 01 Dec 2006 at 10:18 am ¶
gatamala wrote:
Excellent contribution, Yolanda!
I saw another WB cartoon where Bugs Bunny crossed the Mason-Dixon to get away from Yosemite Sam. He turned around and said, “Yowsuh”, while wearing a minstrel suit and blackface. I have also seen Tom & Jerry cartoons where a large mammy is “shushin” Tom and hitting him with a broom.
It doesn’t stop w/ Warner Brothers. Disney had the nerve to play the Al Jolson story! This was in the mid 90s. There was no critique prefacing its airing.
Naturally, I find this cartoon offensive in every way you mentioned. On a personal note, the soldiers as sebben dwarves really disgusted me. I see this as a dig on Black soldiers, who of course, fought in segregated units. My grandfather was a Tuskegee Airmen. He did not like talking about the war. Some soldiers do, some don’t. I do know; however, that solely because of his race, he fought using substandard equipment.
One of his fellow Airmen attended his funeral and said as much. This gentleman was wearing his cap and fighter pins. He was old, but still carried himself as a distinguished pilot. Our pictures show my grandfather looking just as distinguished in his uniform. Neither one of these men were sloppy, dwarves (READ: only need half a man to kill “japs”). Nor were they imbeciles – considering the tests administered to become Airmen were intentionally more rigourous than those administered to Whites. Obviously all of that jingoistic love for soldiers did not extend to ALL troops.
***
Frankly, many (if not most) images of Blacks you see today mimic this cartoon: Staples guy, sassy Pine Sol lady, sassy/mammy figure who MAKES her husband take a laxative, mammy figure that clasps her kids to her oversized bosom during a scary movie. Not to mention all the dancin’, booty-shakin’, fryin’ up some food…
Posted 01 Dec 2006 at 12:32 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
>the sheer amount of energy he expends renders him old and weary.
It does more than that… it makes Prince Chawmin PALER. Like, High Yellow Paler.
I’m not sure WHAT that’s supposed to mean. Maybe some kind of statement that even black folk should stay with their own “color,” since the one the Queen and So White were supposed to go after ends up being noticeably paler, but So White ends up with a dwarf w/ her skin tone???
Posted 01 Dec 2006 at 6:04 pm ¶
Rob Schmidt wrote:
I read the kissing scene as saying a black man leeched of his hyper-sexuality is equivalent to a white man.
Posted 01 Dec 2006 at 8:34 pm ¶
Winn wrote:
Wow, finally a blog devoted to racial issues tackles this topic. It’s tough to be a fan of classic animation who is also of color. If you ever read commentaries or message boards on animation websites about the Censored Eleven, you’ll find hostile contempt for the “politically incorrect” protests against cartoons of this ilk, and lots of cries about how not showing these cartoons is “erasing history”. The vitriol gets pretty ugly at times; for a taste, check out the Amazon.com reviews of the released volumes of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection and marvel at the anger at the inclusion of warnings and critiques about the racist imagery in many of these toons. I agree that we must know our history, but we don’t have to revel in it or present it without cultural context, as these “classic animation fans” would have it. The praise for “Coal Black” is pretty much universal in the animation community. The only thing I can say in its defense is that it’s far less offensive than some of the other Censored Eleven cartoons, like Lantz’s “Scrub Me Mama With a Boogie Beat” (this one is just unbelievable; the all-black town depicted in the toon is called “Lazytown” for God’s sakes!) and WB’s “All This and Rabbit Stew” or “Sunday Go To Meetin’ Time”. And believe me, that is faint praise!
Posted 01 Dec 2006 at 9:50 pm ¶
Y. Carrington wrote:
Winn…your experience in animation circles is exactly why I wanted to write this essay. Many of these guys are dismissive of anything remotely critical of the great Censored Eleven. You see, Clampett and his colleagues were “brave” artists who were “pushing the boundaries” of both animation technology and convention, and “challenging the standards” of what could be shown yadda yadda blah blah blah. Edgy, edgy white guys they were. The Richardses and Silvermans of the world ain’t got nothing on them.
Gatamala, I couldn’t imagine being in your grandfather’s shoes, or the shoes of any Black person who had to witness these stereotypes in the media. How hypocritical was it for Warner Bros to use these sambo cartoon soldiers as pro-war and anti-Japanese propaganda while the gov’ment was simultaneously discriminating against Black servicemembers?
As many of y’all pointed out, there’s way worse animation out there than the Censored Eleven. Tons and tons of it, and the best part is that much of it is in the public domain and on the Internet. The big media companies couldn’t disown this shit if they tried. And Winn—you’re so right—”Scrub Me Mama” is terrible.
Posted 01 Dec 2006 at 10:26 pm ¶
mr guy wrote:
“If you ever read commentaries or message boards on animation websites about the Censored Eleven, you’ll find hostile contempt for the “politically incorrect” protests against cartoons of this ilk, and lots of cries about how not showing these cartoons is “erasing history”. The vitriol gets pretty ugly at times; for a taste, check out the Amazon.com reviews of the released volumes of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection and marvel at the anger at the inclusion of warnings and critiques about the racist imagery in many of these toons. I agree that we must know our history, but we don’t have to revel in it or present it without cultural context, as these “classic animation fans” would have it.”
Yep they love this sort of stuff.And if a few non-white folks like it, there’s your proof of being too “PC”
I’ve seen many others like coal black, but I just don’t see the appeal.
Posted 02 Dec 2006 at 5:18 am ¶
My Name Is Nobody wrote:
Wow. America has come a long way from that craziness.
Posted 04 Dec 2006 at 8:52 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
>Wow. America has come a long way from that craziness.
Actually, I think it went subtle and underground.
Posted 05 Dec 2006 at 11:18 am ¶
AJJA KOIT wrote:
I’m an artist I like making cartoons sometimes,I notices how some artists are a little unhinged and can disturbing even in different was than this ,it’s obscene when these kind of arist enjoy their works.
Posted 29 Dec 2006 at 9:53 pm ¶
LA Edwards wrote:
I’ve read that this cartoon short has been hailed as a “Masterpiece” Masterpiece my ass!
Posted 31 Dec 2006 at 9:01 pm ¶
mira wrote:
where can i get these videos i used to have a copy of lazy town. i am doing a paper on race and human rights in america and i think this would be very useful.
Posted 27 Jan 2007 at 1:11 am ¶
Louis wrote:
Any work with racial overtones is only as effective as the audience allows it to be. To me, this has/had no bearing on the way our country goes. In other words, nobody is turning racist from it, and nobody is becoming unracist by it. In effect, it changes nothing. Just another cartoon.
Posted 21 Feb 2007 at 2:37 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Louis: PUHLEEZE – this work had “racial overtones” the way Birth of a Nation or (not in the same category, of course) A Raisin In the Sun had racial overtones – RACE is the main POINT, the framework on which the entire artistic work rests – there is nothing TONAL about it, it is an integral central features. An overtone implies that while whatever it is is important, you could remove it and still make sense of it. Take Hamlet: it helps to know that there are overtones of chastity and unwed pregnancy in it, but if you remove that, the story still makes sense (just not as rich). Now, you couldn’t remove the “racial” parts of this particular cartoon and still have the intent, which is a parody of Snow White. You’d just have… Snow White circa WWII.
As for it having no effect whatsoever, I’m sorry, but the images of the cartoon (hypersexed blacks, blackface, cooning) are alive and well, and used more often now than at any other time in my admittedly short life (I’m GenX). Noone waved a magic wand and removed racist (there, I said it even if you won’t) imagery from pop culture. It just bubbles out in new ways.
Posted 21 Feb 2007 at 9:34 am ¶
strait wrote:
I dont think america has changed much from this at all….if you are talking about the racial stereotyping… everyone is just appearing to be nice about it all now..at least this cartoon has some honest opinions in it racist all thought they may be… the media is so underhanded today…
Posted 09 Mar 2007 at 11:48 am ¶
strait wrote:
oh yeah… just because something is racist doesnt automaticly stop it from being “art” or a “masterpiece” i think Leni Riefenstals “triumph of the will” is concidered a masterpiece of cinema even though it is promoting the nazi movement… just because you dont like something or disagree with it doesnt discount it as important…
Posted 09 Mar 2007 at 11:51 am ¶
Marc wrote:
I recently found several of these cartoons on collectable DVD’s on Ebay under “Banned Crazy Cartoons” or “Banned Cartoons”. A search under Sambo or other imagery should find several DVD’s. Some of the ones I saw last night included Little Sambo, Scrub Me Mama, and Rabbit Stew and I was amazed. The idea that these were ever acceptable forms of entertainment makes me question the morality of the so called “Greatest Generation”, and it truly sickens me to think of a movie theater filled with weekending white folks laughing at these cartoons, filling their mouths with popcorn, nudging the kids in the sides with knowing glances and laughter…eggh..what a culture!!! In comparison to several of the one’s I have, I must admit the animation techniques are better, yet the message is still as hateful. Admiring the animation is a bit like giving Hitler props for his expediency; alas the animation proficiency is there. Question: “So White” is racist cariciature; what could you consider rap and hip hop videos today? Are they honest representations of black life? As many whites in the 40’s believed these cartoons were a reflection of black culture, is it wrong to see music video imagery as any less inflammatory of racist stereotypes? Do the positions of power musicians place themselves in these videos take back the ruinous spirit of the “So White” cartoon? I look forward to reading hopefully a few responses…Cheers
Posted 20 Mar 2007 at 2:13 pm ¶
The Poet LaFe wrote:
Thanks for sharing! Exposure and information brings about enlightenment. What is hidden within a being is bound to shine forth pure and clear. From the middle passage to present day we need not be deceived as to the true nature of what has evolved into our present day race situation. The past is what it is and cannot be changed; present moment awareness is key to further enlightenment. What we are today, how we live today, what we say today about yesterday, today and tomorrow speaks to the true nature of how we continue to evolve as the human race. The only things that have really changed are the outward manifestations; for what lies within us has not changed and the world today is not far removed from this 1943 outward manifestation of race relations in the world, not just in America. It is quite possible that it is more honest in its revelations than much of what is viewed today. Thank you again for bringing this to my attention and allowing me to respond from my soul impressions. Peace and blessings, Ophelia J. Thompson
Posted 02 Apr 2007 at 8:32 am ¶
idan wrote:
what proof is there that these censored 11 are actually in the public domain. i’m thinking of using them in an art piece and would really like to avoid getting sued by wb
Posted 13 Apr 2007 at 6:26 pm ¶
noapol wrote:
Thanks for posting, I’ve been wanting to see this for a while now. It is indeed as brilliant as many have hailed it to be.
The combination of Clampett’s manic direction, Warren Foster’s rhyming dialogue, Rod Scribner’s animation and Carl Stalling’s music all add up to an amazing piece of animation. It’s just a shame that the print is so murky, I imagine that a restored version would really be a visual treat.
Posted 13 May 2007 at 7:20 pm ¶
Nostalgio wrote:
First off, I’m white. For many of you, this will mean that I “will never understand” and you’re probably right.
But I am what I am (no Popeye pun intended). I don’t consider myself a racist or bigot, but frankly I feel the definition of those terms can be very subjective. I haven’t any friends that aren’t caucasoid, but by the same token I’m on friendly terms with plenty of non-caucasoids; I tend not to socialize with Afro-American nor Latinos merely because the people I know that are of those “types” are simply other-cultural, with differing ideas of what is interesting and in many cases, differing language be it slang, dialect, or otherwise. The interests and language I’m typically exposed to by these groups simply tend not to run congruent to my own interests. I don’t care much at all for “redneck” types either, because their (stereo) typical culture (and oftentimes language) have little in common with my own interests and/or use/interpretation of my language. If that makes me a bigot, so be it, but I digress…
I don’t understand the vehemence of people ripping on these cartoons. I’ve seen plenty of classic animations that definitely fail modern political-correctness (and miserably), but so what? It is what it is (and was) for the time it was created. Though chock full of stereotypes, these shorts don’t attack the cultures being charicaturized. Settle down, for crying out loud. Another great classic, “Song of the South” was pulled by Disney. What a shame.
K.I. Wayans made “White Chicks” where stereotypes were indulged. Big deal. Entertainment doesn’t make our culture. It reflects it. And so what if a sixty year old reflection looks so different (and God forbid – stereotypical) from present day.
Put some of this energy into feeding the poor and the helpless. Don’t ban my cartoons.
Tomorrow’s moral yardsticks may do unpleasant things to what you all figure to be totally acceptable today. Settle down; the cartoon can’t be “unmade”.
Posted 02 Oct 2007 at 3:56 pm ¶
Coal Black wrote:
And you are right…by virtue of your inherant identity, you do not understand, just as I am sure so many of your contemporaries of black, latino and asian descent would not. However, whether you get it or not, entertained by it or not, is not the point. The point is that it was offensive negative representation and the perpetuation deep seeded beliefs and hatred that allowed these images to paraded in the first place. They were offensive in the time of their creation and they are offensive today. The presentation of black people as ugly, happy, brainless, over sexualized/sexed, gambling, afraid of their own shadow, watermelon stealing, fried chicken eating, jungle native loafs, will never be amusing to me as a black person. When I see it on film and see the disparate economic differences that this thinking and these images have resulted in up until today, I’d prefer you be entertained some other way.
Posted 11 Apr 2008 at 3:55 pm ¶
Mike Belgrove wrote:
Juan over at Highbrid Nation did a nice piece on these racist cartoon showing up on the net which made me go looking to see what others have said. My opinion on the whole thing is that these cartoons need to be soon and should not be sweeped under a rug or locked in a vault. They are part of our history. Our society (Whites and blacks alike) seem to want to hide or “ban” anything viewed as racist. Whats the end goal? To say “look. no racism”. We need to look at things such as these cartoons so we can understand how deep rooted racism is and was. Only then can we move forward. Pretending like they don’t exist doesn’t help.
Posted 29 Apr 2008 at 9:26 am ¶
Elwood wrote:
(Disclaimer: I’m a white guy.) I found this cartoon, watched it, also found this blog. Oh mercy.
The way I understand racism is NOT being “colorblind”, i.e. not seeing another person’s skin color nor recognizing differences in different subcultures in America. Black culture is different from white culture, Hispanic culture, etc., let’s not be ignorant and lie that that’s not the case. Adding value to skin color, or another ethnicity’s culture – now to me *that* is racism. In this case, “blacks act stupid, talk funny, let’s use that for humor in our next cartoon”. I just can’t laugh with a cartoon that pokes fun at black culture.
We’ve come a long way from the mindset of “Coal Black” and “Clean Pastures”, thank God. But let’s not get rid of these cartoons, they do show what some mindsets were back in the day. Let’s just make sure *we* don’t have that mindset. Unfortunately, some still do, like whites who talk down about n****rs, and blacks who insist that whites want to keep them down.
“I have a dream that men will be judged not by the color of his skin, but on the content of his character.” (MLK Jr)
Posted 16 Nov 2008 at 12:29 am ¶
James May wrote:
It’s just a cartoon – why elevate it to the level of some evil miasma? Get your head out of the racial cesspool and stop thinking about what only black people do in movies, sports, plane crashes, whether Cleopatra and Hannibal was black and other nonsense.
Posted 13 Aug 2009 at 1:13 am ¶